Just to clarify a few points & questions I've seen in this thread so far:
The Constitutional Oath of Office only extends so far as any person still possessing any legal reason to occupy the Office that requires the
Oath...ie: When a President steps down & no longer holds Office (any other Office that he may step into after leaving the first Office), the legal
to obey that Oath also ends. This is because the Constitution itself does not specifically extend the obligations of Office
beyond the time that the duties of Office
are still imposed. As long as the actual "contractual obligation" of the Office is finished, so to
ends the obligated limitations coupled with it. Yes, the Constitution is literally a "contract of employment" between the People (the employer) &
the government (the employees) & the Oath of Office is equal to a lawful signature on any other contract. This Constitutional contract not only
defines what jobs the employees have, but also defines what limitations they have for "professional conduct." The Bill of Rights is literally a list
of potential crimes that the employees must arbitrate if the employers
are having problems with each other, as well as establishes "acceptable
conduct" among employees as well.
The way the Constitution was written states that all People are Sovereign Citizens, with the Constitution itself establishing certain Civil Rights to
be enforced between all Citizens: This list of Rights (ie: The Bill of Rights) was never intended to be all-inclusive or even a complete list of
Rights...The Supreme Court has been known to "interpret" other inherent Rights from the "spirit of the Constitution" in circumstances where it
wasn't expressly written: One example is the Right to Travel Freely.
In short, all political power belongs to the People (Indeed, many if not all State Constitutions flat-out say this openly!), the Constitution outlines
our basic Laws of the Land & organizes a politically limited
government for performing the "common duties" that the Common Law defines for
the whole society.
The Constitution also establishes the form of government that must equally enforce
all of those Rights whenever Sovereign Citizens find
contention among themselves...But to serve in a government Office, this in effect causes certain Sovereign Citizens to willingly waive some of
their own personal Sovereign Rights & Lawfully limit their actions
during the time they serve in Office. But once a Government Official has
performed the duties & steps down from Office, he/she re-obtains his/her full Sovereign status & Rights under the Constitution.
The Civil Duty of the Sovereign Citizen still remains at all times
, however: Only Common Law (ie: Upholding the equal Rights among all Citizens
& personally avoid violating the equal Rights of others) has any true jurisdiction over Sovereign Citizens. The one & other (perhaps most important)
Civil Duty is to keep vigilance on our Government Officers to assure that they
don't step beyond the specific duties & limitations of their
Office & violate the Rights of the rest of the Citizens!
This even extends into "Emergency Acts" as well! The Supreme Law of the Land is just that: Supreme above all other law
, whether legislated,
declared, or merely even enacted as "policy," nothing the government does is allowed to supercede the Supreme Law
, under any circumstances
whatsoever! Each such instance when any government Officer exceeds these Constitutionally-imposed limits, we lose our Common Law for all Citizens!
This is what separates the Constitutional Republic from being a Democracy! In a Democracy all it takes is one charismatic individual to persuade 51%
of the population to "vote away" the Rights of the other 49%...Which in turn winds up voting away the Rights of everyone
at the same time!
Obedience to the Constitution as the Supreme Law is what avoids that fatal flaw in a Democracy!
Originally posted by Max_TO
Executive orders have been used by presidents since 1789, even though there is no constitutional provision or statute allowing it. "
This is true...Executive Orders are no more than "policy" (technically can only be enforced within the Executive Branch itself & nowhere
) which can never even carry the same level of authority as Congressional Legislation, which becomes actual Law (Statutory Law): Policy can
never supercede Legislation & Legislation can never supercede Common Law (the Constitution).
Most of the "laws" in effect now have, in truth, been enforced beyond their jurisdictional & Constitutional limitations
as if the were equal
or superior to the Constitution itself...As a blatant violation committed by law enforcement officers! One of the problems is that probably most LA
Officers have no idea that this is what's happened! They're trained to enforce the laws, but they are not educated to understand
have precedence over the others & which jurisdictions that these different laws were meant to enforce!
In effect, when the laws are violated by government officials & the People allow the perpetrators get away with it
, we become a "nation
without law"...An anarchy! Right now, the government is merely trying to establish as much control as they can over a nation that they themselves had
led into anarchy by violating that same nation's laws!
Originally posted by jackinthebox
The Constitution was designed to ensure public safety, not endanger it.
But safety from what? The Constitution was created to protect the people from the government!
Precisely! The Constitution was established to limit
what the government can do! You, me & all other US Citizens are the only ones who truly
have the power to enforce the Constitution
! Without us, it becomes just what Bush says..."just a GD piece of paper." It must be obeyed by all
government officials, in all three branches & at all levels, right down to the city dog-catcher (at least, as long as it's a civil office
The People are the only ones who can ensure that the government officers will obey it!
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
" -- Thomas
So, in answer to the original question posed by the OP, the grounds to refuse the CIC's orders depends on whether those orders were issued lawfully,
in accordance with the Constitution
; Any order that causes our military personnel to disobey its own Oath of Office is an unlawful order. Not
even Executive Orders can supercede the Constitutional Oath of Office! Even the UCMJ reflects this: "I was just following orders" is no
in a court martial if the soldier on trial has violated the Constitutional Oath: This is how War Crimes charges are upheld as valid
charges, even if the violations were committed "under orders." In truth (if not in practice), the "superior officer" who originally issued
unlawful orders in the first place will also
come under court martial as well!
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Wait a minute, what? You said this earlier...
I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances.
...and you just found out what Posse Comitatus is? How exactly did you spend those eight years?
Hmmm...Actually, the Posse Comitatus is merely an expansion & clarification of what originally appears in the Constitution...Specifically under the
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
ONe thing I notice there is that this Amendment does not make any distinction between "official government military soldiers" or "private mercenary
contractors." So, theoretically comes the idea that use of "contracted" troops by the government
is also restricted by the 3rd Amendment
Any Congressional legislation (ie: like the Military Commissions Act--Look it up) that acts contrary to the Constitution cannot be enforced as
& especially any Executive Orders or Bush's "signing statements" are also not law
! In truth, these actions have been in violation
of the law
, nothing less.
Not even Congress is allowed to "legislate" enough of a change in the Constitution that would make it contradict itself! Congress can "amend" the
Constitution & "clarify" specific sections of it by law, but they are not allowed to legislate anything that would supercede or void any part of the
Constitution that exists. The reasoning for this is because it was We the People who "ordained & established" the Constitution & We the People have
never "delegated" any power to the government that would allow them to violate the Constitution in any way, especially by any "Powers of
Taking all of this into consideration, the current government (as it stands now & how it operates) is nothing more & nothing less than a foreign
power that has invaded & infiltrated our nation
, subverting the very core of our Sovereign Laws right out from under us! The only real
"enforcement mechanism" our Constitution has to survive is us
, the People! The Constitution itself gives us the Supreme Law we need to
survive & prosper as a nation, but it cannot defend itself...We the People are the only defense for preserving our Supreme Law of the Land from